Archived: Manor Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our observations showed a person-centred approach was not always followed by staff. People’s care plans were not accurate, up to date or fully reflective of their needs

Overall people told us they were happy with the care they received, although concerns were raised by relatives. Comments included; “We have ongoing issues regarding hygiene and personal care” and, “[Family member] rarely leaves their bed, yet they have only had three showers in the last 28 days”. One relative raised concerns about their family member’s food intake and said, “If my relative and I didn’t come in every day [family member] would starve.” Care records showed this person had lost over 4kgs in 2 months and had a body mass index (BMI) of 15.24. A normal BMI is considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9. There was no reference to this weight loss in their nutrition care plan and the provider did not have audits in place to monitor people’s weights and ensure appropriate action had been taken.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service mainly supported older people with physical health needs and/or living with dementia, yet the needs of those people were not fully understood or met. There were significant shortfalls in provisions for people in relation to care, activities and the environment. We observed staff practices did not meet the diverse needs of people.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People's communication needs were not always met as communication aids were not in place or utilised. Information in people's communication plans was limited. One person's care records stated they had special communication needs and used a picture board and white board to communicate with staff. Staff were not aware of these communication tools and we saw they were not used. Another person's care plans showed they were living with dementia, had significant sensory impairments and problems forming words yet stated they had no special communication requirements. The care plans stated, “Staff to use natural gestures to communicate.”

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There were limited opportunities for people to be able to share their views and provide feedback on care. Some people and relatives were not aware of any residents/relatives meetings. Others knew these took place, however one relative said they weren't able to attend as they were always held during the day. We observed a relatives meeting had been scheduled for 2pm on 26 February 2025 and no one had attended. Six residents and no relatives attended a meeting at 2pm on 7 March 2025. Notes showed issues were raised about a radiator not working in a shower room, food choices, the laundry and suggestions put forward for activities. It was not clear what action had been taken in response or when the next meeting would be held. There was no evidence of attempts being made to support people who were less able to communicate to give their views.

The provider had completed a resident and relative survey between December 2023 and April 2024 where 119 surveys had been sent out and 11 received back. Analysis showed the issues raised were more staff, improvements in maintenance and décor, better communication with relatives and improvements in staff interactions with people. The action plan from the analysis had not been completed.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although staff had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights, people were not always supported to experience equality in the care they received. People who were less physically able or living with dementia, did not have the same opportunities as other people living at the service. For example, opportunities to participate in activities, access the outdoors, or experience meaningful engagement. In addition, information was not available for people with differing communication needs, in an adapted format. Improvement was also required to ensure people’s care was person-centred, reflecting their needs, choices and preferences.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

There was a failure to maintain effective oversight and monitoring of the experiences of people who were physically less able, and people living with dementia. Inequality in the experiences of these people was evident throughout the assessment. The provider and manager failed to identify and address these shortfalls to improve the lives of these people.

We observed people who were not able to communicate their needs verbally did not receive equity in experiences or outcomes. Some relatives had put notices up in their family member’s room to remind staff of the care and support their family member needed and preferred. For example, one person had a notice reminding staff to shave them as they did not like having facial hair, yet each day we inspected the person had not been shaved.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

During the inspection we did not observe anyone actively receiving end of life care. Care records showed that some people had end of life care plans in place. Where these were in place some required improvements to ensure they were person-centred.